Premium
Serum effects on cell‐mediated destruction of rous sarcomas
Author(s) -
Hayami Masanori,
Hellström Ingegerd,
Hellström Karl Erik
Publication year - 1973
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/ijc.2910120315
Subject(s) - rous sarcoma virus , titer , cytotoxic t cell , cytotoxicity , spleen , cell culture , biology , immunology , chemistry , virology , microbiology and biotechnology , antibody , in vitro , virus , biochemistry , genetics
A microcytotoxicity test was used to study various effects of serum from tumorbearing and tumor‐free Japanese quails on cell‐mediated destruction of allogeneic sarcomas induced by the Schmidt‐Ruppin strain of the Rous sarcoma virus (SR‐RSV). Spleen cells from quails whose sarcomas had regressed (regressors) were used as the source of immune cells, since they had been previously shown to be cytotoxic to cultivated Rous sarcoma cells. Fourteen of 24 progressor sera (58.3%) gave more than 25% blocking of cell‐mediated cytotoxicity to Rous sarcoma cells when tested at dilution 1:6, and seven of these sera (29.2%) had more than 50% blocking activity. The mean blocking index of all progressor sera was 35.5% at dilution 1:6, and the mean titer of those seven sera which gave more than 50% blocking when diluted 1:6 was 2 5.6 . Six of 18 regressor sera (33.3%) had more than 25% blocking activity at dilution 1:6 and three of them (16.7%) gave more than 50% blocking at that dilution. The mean blocking activity of the 18 regressor sera at dilution 1:6 was 16.9%, and the mean titer of the three sera which gave more than 50% blocking at that dilution was 2 2.8 . Absorption of progressor sera with cultivated Rous sarcoma cells, but not with normal quail fibroblasts, decreased their blocking activity. Some sera from normal quails decreased the cytotoxic effect of immune spleen cells. The blocking effect of these sera was less, however, than that seen with progressor and regressor sera, and it was not removed by absorption with tumor cells. None of nine sera from bursectomized regressors was blocking at dilution 1:6, while a blocking effect was detected with three out of four sera from bursectomized progressors. The blocking effect of sera from bursectomized progressors could not be removed by absorption with Rous sarcoma cells. Its titer was lower than that of concomitantly tested progressors with intact bursa. Furthermore, sera from bursectomized progressors did not block when tested by pre‐incubation with the target cells. Four of 10 regressor sera tested could abrogate the blocking activity of progressor sera and, hence, were characterized as unblocking. On the other hand, none of five sera from bursectomized regressors had any unblocking effect. Some diluted sera from regressors, from bursectomized regressors and from progressors conferred a cytotoxic activity on normal spleen cells (“arming” effect). In addition, some sera, particularly from regressors (normal or bursectomized), potentiated the cytotoxic effect of regressor spleen cells.